My former team and I are planning to meet up soon – the last time we saw each other was in July or August (I remember very well because I was fat and jobless then). Sadly, their situation’s still as bad as it was right after I left – there’s been a change in management (some of it, anyway), which might mean there is something intrinsically wrong with the organization.
Ice asked for my opinion about certain “performance standards” their supervisor is trying to implement. She asked for my opinion and I gave it. To whoever gets offended by what I right – “You can take this post, print it out, crumple it into a little ball, and shove it up your ass.”
Oh yes, Universe, the Bitch is back.
Here’s my response.
Okay, feedback on the email.
It’s a good thing that the form was sent to you before the end of the year – that way you will already know how you are going to be assessed. HOWEVER, it would still have been better if the form was discussed BECAUSE sending an email does not guarantee understanding, not does it give the opportunity for immediate clarification (like the logic behind the scoring system).
That said, there are several things I have rather strong opinions on. Anything mentioned hereafter are my personal takes. You are not required to agree with any of the points raised nor should you be swayed by my points of view.
I don’t understand why taking planned leaves affect your performance evaluation. In all the organizations I’ve been with, it has always been the unscheduled leaves that make scores lower. Why?
First, what is the reason for including scheduled leaves in measuring attendance? Since attendance is an organization-wide metric, is this scoring system implemented across all levels of the organization (meaning if the QAs are being measured against this standard, shouldn’t the Quality Lead be evaluated the same way as well?) and accounts? If not, why is HRCC the only account implementing this kind of measure? Will all employees of HRCC be measured in the same way? If not, why are the QAs the only individuals to have this restriction? Is the account under so much scrutiny that employees are going to be penalized for going on scheduled leaves?
Second, the reason why it’s called scheduled leaves is because it is planned – this means permission was asked and given ahead of time. It’s now the supervisor’s responsibility that the remaining staff be distributed as strategically as possible. Kung masyadong madami ang napayagan magleave, hindi problema ng QAs yun – problema yan ng supervisor kasi he should have known better than to let so many people go on leave.
Third, from an employee’s point of view, this becomes a loss-loss situation. If a leave has to be taken, it will never be a truly positive experience because regardless of the supervisor’s decision, the impact will always be unfavorable – if the supervisor does not give permission, the employee does not to get to go on leave; if the supervisor does give permission, the employee gets to go on leave but will have to live with a lower score when evaluated.
Fourth, the company grants employees 25 PTOs, 5 of which are carried over and another 5 converted to cash at the end of the year should it not be completely used. That said, to be able to maximize the leaves given (which, if I’m not mistaken, the company is advertising as a benefit), one must consume 15 of the 25 PTOs, leaving the remaining 10 to be converted to cash or carried over. However, should employees be measured as stated in the KRO form, one will not even reach a 4 should one opt to consume all un-convertible leaves regardless of when said leaves are to be taken.
Fifth, if the response to the fourth point is employees have the option of not going on leave, then the question is this: what message are you trying to get across? Is work-life balance something we are not advocating anymore? If it is not, then I suggest that expectations be managed. If you want employees to practically live in the office, then say so – don’t preach about the importance of health and family when there are consequences when one attempts to allocate time away from the office.
Sixth, why is attendance being measured on a monthly basis? If the true goal is consistency when it comes to good attendance, then it should be measured as a long-term goal, not something that we are expecting to change on a per-month basis. Measure attendance in terms of percentages in quarters – this way, ranges can be determined to be equivalent to a 4 and a 3, as opposed to going from a 5 to a 2 due to one instance of unscheduled leaves. For instance:
|5.0||100% attendance for the quarter|
|4.0||90% to 95%|
|3.0||85% to 84%|
|2.0||80% to 84%|
* Wherein % attendance is computed as (number of days present) / (Total number of work days)
Lastly, using scheduled leaves as basis for non-performance is against Labor Law.
At this point, I think it should also be brought up that Labor Law states there should be at least 12 hours between an employees’ log out time and the next log in time. If I remember correctly, this was something even WFM was very careful about when plotting schedules for agents – why is the case different for the QAs?
ii. Log In Hours
I agree that QAs should still have phone time – this keeps them updated with the process as well as builds their credibility. I also agree that they should meet the VOC target, as customer satisfaction should be present in every single call. I don’t, however, agree that AHT and conversion should be met. What is the rationale behind this? Is it realistic?
Are there scheduled time frames wherein they should be on the phone or will they be given the freedom to choose what time they go on the phones? Was call volume trending even considered when this KRO was included (especially since VOC, AHT and Conversion targets should be reached)?
And, for the sake of alignment and accountability, since VOC, AHT and Conversions are measured on a QA level, then the Quality Lead should be measured on VOC, AHT and Conversions on a team level as well. And by this, I do not mean agents in operation – I mean scores generated only from calls taken by the QAs. In fact, I suggest that the Quality Lead be measured based on the scores of two teams – agents and QAs. Since the QAs are responsible for providing feedback for agents, then the Quality Lead must be responsible for providing feedback to the QAs.
iii. Quality Scores of Agents Handled – Given by Dallas QAs
Why are the scores of Dallas QA the only ones considered? Why not base the QA’s scores on the OVERALL SCORE of the agents?
Who is responsible for counter-checking Dallas QA scores and giving feedback to the agents – QAs or Team Leads? If it is the Team Leads, what if there should have been disputes raised that would have resulted to a higher score but they weren’t able to do so?
That’s it for the quantifiable data. For the core competencies, I hope you, as a team, came up with the Core Competencies together – or, at the very least, you should understand why these four competencies were chosen for the Quality Team above all the others.
Are the Measurements to Criteria for each competency provided by HR? Some are very vague and not so readily quantifiable, such as:
- Comparison between bullet 3 & 4 – One gets a 4 if one is able to withstand pressure and accept change. One gets a 3 if one adjusts to change and needs help during demanding situations. If one adjusts to change, does it not mean that one has accepted change and should therefore be scored a 4?
- Bullet 3 – if the situation is demanding and one asks for help why should that be scored lower? Isn’t asking for help better than pretending you know what to do?
- Bullet 1 – What do we mean by a “wholistic approach to learning”?
- Comparison between bullet 1 & 2 – One gets a 5 if one has a wholistic approach to learning & seeks opportunities for the same; quick in grasping new & complex ideas. One gets a 4 if one is a self-starter; is able to apply learning. In seeking opportunities for learning, is one not being self-starter? If one is able to apply learning, is it not proof that one has grasped the idea? If you answered, “yes” to both questions, then shouldn’t you be wondering what the REAL difference is?
- Bullet 4 – “Requires to be shown what to learn”. What does that even mean?
- First and foremost, Level of Interaction does not amount to Teamwork. I can turn myself into my boss’s or my teammates’ shadow and still be completely useless. This is not how Teamwork is measured.
- Keeping to one’s self is not indicative of a negative mindset regarding teamwork. If a person is truly an introvert, it should not be used as basis of non-performance.
I had a comment on Ownership & Achievement Focus, but I kind of got the point.
Let me know what happens.
On a different note… I never should have told Martin I used to work with Debbie. Now he keeps on talking to me and I don’t really like him that much.